Mary as Aeiparthenos; why?

Bonnie said:
Oooh, good point, about the "rest of HER seed." So, if Catholics insist the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, then they will have to admit that she had other children besides Jesus, with her lawful husband, Joseph.

it is obvious in vs. 12 that the "woman" here is the church, since it mentions that the dragon was enrage with the woman since he made war with her seed, who kept the commandments and the testimony of Jesus.
Click to expand...
We should remember too that all of this is taking place in heaven. Why is mary giving birth to Jesus in heaven? Isn't it recorded that she gave birth to Him in Bethlehem?

Rev 12
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.

This is a proof text catholics use to show us mary is IN heaven. It says exactly nothing about any alleged assumption but its their claim.
 
Bonnie said:
The ECFs were not infallible; they were not eye witnesses to Jesus Christ and His ministry. There is NO theological reason in the world for Mary to have been a PV--up until she gave birth to Jesus, yes! That was necessary! But after that, and after her 40 days of purification were finished, she and Joseph could resume a normal, married life and all it entails, and bring up children together, of Joseph's body. Marriage is an honorable institution ordained by God and sex in marriage is also a gift, as well as the means to have children within the parameters of holy matrimony.

Your church declares and teaches that marriage is a sacrament, so why on earth would it be wrong for Mary, after Jesus' birth, to have a normal, marital relationship with her lawfully wedded husband, and raise up children with Joseph of his own body? Would they not be the gift of God to them, for their faithfulness to Him?
Click to expand...
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church. You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers. We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.

If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none. John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down. And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
 
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church. You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers. We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.

If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none. John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down. And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
Click to expand...
There is a reason teachings are compared to scripture. The John 21:24 verse is true, but it does not refer to those unbiblical Marian teachings, papacy, etc. If those sacred traditions were true, they would be supported by scripture. However, they are not. NT scriptures fine their support in the OT scriptures. RC traditions and teaching find support in neither, hence must be rejected.
 
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church. You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers. We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.

If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none. John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down. And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
Click to expand...
There are church fathers that didn't agree with marys pv.

Eusebius- Church History Book 3 Ch 20

“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh."

Tertullian;
Tertullian-Anti Marcion book 4 ch 19
We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord’s nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation (“Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;” again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him ), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not—when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they saw Him before them a veritable man?—whom they had heard call Himself “Son of man?”—of whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of human quality?—supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one indeed, but still one who had been born as man?
Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), p. 378 or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they “who were standing without” were really “His mother and His brethren.” It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.
Click to expand...

There are others.
 
Last edited:
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church.
Click to expand...


"God is keeping something from you". "It isn't enough". "Look elsewhere". Where do these words come from? Certainly not from God.

We can trust the written word, that it contains all we need to know, so to go outside of the Word of God to inquire about things we have no business inquiring about, is to say that God isn't all knowing and doesn't know what he's doing, so folks should seek elsewhere.

We have a lot of historical and ancient writings from everywhere, that have been preserved. Not just baloney from the Rcc. Just because something was taught by so and so in the year 200, does not necessarily make the teaching biblical. What it does say, is that those after so and so, did not take the teaching to the word of God, to see what God had to say about it. Instead, they just swallowed something hook, line, and sinker and then passed on the error to others, who also did not check with what God had to say about it.
 
A new day said:
"God is keeping something from you". "It isn't enough". "Look elsewhere". Where do these words come from? Certainly not from God.

We can trust the written word, that it contains all we need to know, so to go outside of the Word of God to inquire about things we have no business inquiring about, is to say that God isn't all knowing and doesn't know what he's doing, so folks should seek elsewhere.

We have a lot of historical and ancient writings from everywhere, that have been preserved. Not just baloney from the Rcc. Just because something was taught by so and so in the year 200, does not necessarily make the teaching biblical. What it does say, is that those after so and so, did not take the teaching to the word of God, to see what God had to say about it. Instead, they just swallowed something hook, line, and sinker and then passed on the error to others, who also did not check with what God had to say about it.
Click to expand...
They are really implying that and more. That God held back important things we needed to know.
 
A new day said:
"God is keeping something from you". "It isn't enough". "Look elsewhere". Where do these words come from? Certainly not from God.

We can trust the written word, that it contains all we need to know, so to go outside of the Word of God to inquire about things we have no business inquiring about, is to say that God isn't all knowing and doesn't know what he's doing, so folks should seek elsewhere.

We have a lot of historical and ancient writings from everywhere, that have been preserved. Not just baloney from the Rcc. Just because something was taught by so and so in the year 200, does not necessarily make the teaching biblical. What it does say, is that those after so and so, did not take the teaching to the word of God, to see what God had to say about it. Instead, they just swallowed something hook, line, and sinker and then passed on the error to others, who also did not check with what God had to say about it.
Click to expand...

If we think about it their musings put down in writing were philosophical, fantastical, unimaginable, creating the mother of Jesus in their image, applying God's traits to this woman and thereby establishing an idolatrous belief system that took root in what is known as today, the church of Mary worship, i.e. the Rcc.
 
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church. You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers. We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.
Click to expand...
not in the time of scripture.

not in the time of scripture, or after by any Christians.

Stella1000 said:
If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none.
Click to expand...
wrong, if they are believers their source of authority is His word, Jesus, the apostles and other disciples, and the Holy Spirit. you only have stories made up by men.

Stella1000 said:
John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
Click to expand...
If they needed to be written down then they would have been. catholics are always showing their lack of trust / faith in Christ, and their lack of knowledge of scripture.

Stella1000 said:
There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down.
Click to expand...
sure there is. if He wanted us to then we would. otoh, catholic don't believe what He did have written down. so you want more of His truth to not believe?

Stella1000 said:
And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
Click to expand...
no, you / the rcc have nothing to 'guard'. the rcc / catholics have no faith in Him.

neither guard the truth He did have written, they twist and pervert it. no believer does that.
 
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons
Click to expand...

There is no theological reason for Mary to be an "ever virgin". None. This Rcc dogma ads nothing to God's plan for mankinds salvation through His Son Jesus Christ and actually takes away from His role as mediator, redeemer, King and High Priest by adding Mary, a sinner, into what is rightfully only His! And this thing called mariolatry cannot be sustained by Scripture, there is no Scripture that even hints at such tomfoolery and therefore must be sustained by self-claimed ecclesiastical authority, papal infallibility, "tradition", "typology" and what one Rc called "common sense". So, then, you claim theology but based on what Scripture? I have yet to read one clear Scripture from a Rc that shows any of this mariolatry "theology".

So, that said, Scripture is to define proper theology, based on proper hermenuetics and exegesis, dividing the Word correctly, not adding to nor taking away, and should only bring glory and edification to God and God alone. As far as this Mary, without Scriptural writing from what the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who only tells us what comes from the Father, there is nothing. No thing but vacuous silence.

Stella1000 said:
because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church.
Click to expand...

These were men. Only men. They were not Apostles. They were not alive at the time of Jesus nor His Apostles. Their writings were also not inspired by the Holy Spirit and consequently their writings stand and fall based on what Scripture declares. Since there is no Scripture to sustain their adorations towards Jesus' mother, we can rightly call their writings musings and philosophy.

Stella1000 said:
You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers.
Click to expand...

So you believe God is limited over time and space then. That God could not lead His children away from heresy even millennia after Jesus' life and the coming forth of the Bible unless they are ECF's or in the self-appointed ecclesiastical authority Rcc. Way to put God in a box Stella.

Stella1000 said:
We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.
Click to expand...

It's not sound. God has no beginning. He is everlasting to everlasting. The great I AM. Hight Priest. King. Savior. Redeemer. Mediator. 100% God but He was also was 100% man and that is what Mary had anything to do with. The vessel of His earthly body. Ergo she is the Mother of Jesus', not the Mother of God. Giving her this title leads to what we see in the Rcc, which is worship of a creature.

Stella1000 said:
If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none.
Click to expand...

The Bible. Hello. The Scriptures were extant and in the body of Christ before your ECF's. Everything we needed and need to know is written down and given to us already. Theologians trying to understand some of what Scripture has is what has led to many ECF's errors that have been brought forward, with purpose, within the Rcc.

Stella1000 said:
John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down. And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
Click to expand...

All born-again believers are called to defend the faith. This is not what the Rcc has done. This belief system has strayed from its first love and fallen into egregious errors and these same heresies continue to this day.
 
Nondenom40 said:
There are church fathers that didn't agree with marys pv.

Eusebius- Church History Book 3 Ch 20

“Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh."

Tertullian;


There are others.
Click to expand...
Eusebius has never been traditionally cited as denying Mary's perpetual virginity for that reason or any other. He was an historian who regularly noted distant relatives were called 'brother or sister'. For example he cites the use in John 19 25...

25 And that is what the soldiers did. Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mary the wife of Clopas would have been a relative more distant since even in those days, siblings were not called the same name.

So no, there isn't any argument in the early Church against the perpetual virginity in the way you are claiming.
 
Stella1000 said:
Eusebius has never been traditionally cited as denying Mary's perpetual virginity for that reason or any other. He was an historian who regularly noted distant relatives were called 'brother or sister'. For example he cites the use in John 19 25...

25 And that is what the soldiers did. Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mary the wife of Clopas would have been a relative more distant since even in those days, siblings were not called the same name.

So no, there isn't any argument in the early Church against the perpetual virginity in the way you are claiming.
Click to expand...
Which seems to negative the false claim of Mary being a PV. It also shows the ecfs and historians are only used if it suits the RCs false doctrines. The Marian doctrines come from the POJ which is a proven fake writings.
 
The crucifixion of Jesus was very much a public huge and well known event. Not a private and unknown, where only family was aware of the event. The entire sanhedrin was present, along with temple guards and roman solders as well a huge crowd of people who were in Jerusalem that day.

Stella1000 said:
So no, there isn't any argument in the early Church against the perpetual virginity in the way you are claiming.
Click to expand...

Any excuse you can find to cling to mary and worship her instead of Jesus. The passage you quoted was about the crucifixion of Jesus, but you had to turn it to all about mary instead. And before you go there. There is nothing in Scriptures that even hint at worshiping her. All this immaculate crock is an excuse to elevate her to a goddess. Which Scripture vehemently condemns
 
Bonnie said:
Since when is a majority the litmus test for the truth?

Luther's attitude towards Mary changed, the deeper he got into Scripture. In fact, he once wrote that in the RCC, the Babe was almost entirely forgotten in favor of the mother. He wrote that if one should be forgotten, it should be the mother, not her Baby. However, he did believe in Mary's PV, but that is considered pious opinion in our church, and not something one MUST believe to be a Lutheran in good standing or necessary for salvation. I personally think Luther was wrong about that. I don't know what Zwingli or Calvin taught about it.
Click to expand...
By trying to honor Mary; the rcc casts dishonor on her. Consider what John the Baptist said:

JOHN 3:

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

The false Mary of the rcc has not done this. She has sought glory for herself at the expense of her son. All you have to do is to read what she says during many of her "apparitions". Having thought about it, does the false Mary of the apparitions sound like this?......... :


LUKE 2:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Strong's Concordance
doulé: female slave, bondmaid.
Original Word: δούλη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: doulé
Phonetic Spelling: (doo'-lay)
Definition: female slave, bondmaid
Usage: a female slave, bonds-maid.
 
Stella1000 said:
But there obviously are theological reasons because these early Fathers were the theologians whose writings have been preserved by the Church. You are proposing a scenario based on your own reasoning and thinking that it must be more legitimate than those early Fathers. We know that the question of Mary's status has been discussed and debated since those early times and that while some ideas were debunked such as whether she was divine, the elevation of her as Mother of God was found to be sound.

If Protestant denials of these qualities had some source of authority to point to in the early Church that gave support to discrediting the Fathers, that would be one thing, but there is none. John states in chapter 21 of the gospel "24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is so much more to Christs legacy than what is written down. And this is the very point of the One, Apostolic Church and the deposit of faith it guards until He comes again.
Click to expand...
Which, if true and it is not, means that the rcc had kept hidden important salvation relevant teaching for almost two thousand, according to rc's, years before they were revealed to the general populace. in other words, the rcc breached its fiduciary responsibility to give all teachings relevant to salvation. It still does this. So much for being the "church" that Jesus started.

fiduciary applies to any situation in which one person justifiably places confidence and trust in someone else and seeks that person's help or advice in some matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top